Empirical Comparison of Lottery- and Rating-Based Preference Assessment

  • Oscar Franzese
  • Mark R. McCord
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 44)


We investigate the performance of direct rating, probability equivalent, and lottery equivalent assessment techniques for a set of 41 individuals in terms of the ability of the techniques to reproduce indifference between two-criteria outcomes previously judged to be indifferent. To compare the performance before and after gaining familiarity with the techniques, we use data obtained both at the beginning and at the end of the interview sessions. The results show that the probability equivalent and lottery equivalent techniques performed no worse, and generally better than the rating technique. These results refute claims that lottery-based techniques are too complicated and too unrealistic compared to simpler techniques to be used in MCDA preference assessment. The results also show that all three techniques performed better when using data obtained at the end of the session—after the individuals gained familiarity with the techniques—and that the relatively complex lottery equivalent technique performed as well as the other techniques when using data obtained at the end of the session.

Key words

Preference assessment Rating Probability equivalent Lottery equivalent 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allais, M. “The So-Called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions Under Uncertainty,” Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. M. Allais and O. Hagen (eds.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, NL, 1979, pp. 437–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Franzese, O. Errors and Impacts of Preference Assessments in a Multiattribute Utility Framework. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. Fischhoff, B, N. Welch, and S. Frederick, “Construal Processes in Preference Assessment,” Risk and Uncertainty, 19:1–3, pp. 139–64, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. French, S., Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Larson, R. and A. Odoni, Urban Operations Research. Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. Law, A., D. Pathak, and M. McCord, “Health Status Utility Assessment by Standard Gamble: A Comparison of the Probability Equivalence and the Lottery Equivalence Approaches,” Pharmaceutical Research, 15(1), 1998, pp. 105–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McCord, M. R. and O. Franzese, “Empirical Evidence of Two-Attribute Utility on Probability,” Theory and Decision, 35, pp. 337–51, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McCord, M. R., O. Franzese, and X. D. Sun, “Multicriteria Analysis of Aeromedical Fleet Expansion,” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 54(2 & 3), pp. 101–29, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. McCord, M. R. and A.Y.C. Leu, “Sensitivity of Optimal Hazmat Routes to Limited Preference Specification,” Information Systems and Operational Research, 33(2), pp. 68–83, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. McCord, M. R. and R. de Neufville, “Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment,” Management Science, 32(1), pp. 56–60, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCord, M. R. and R. de Neufville, “Assessment Response Surface: Investigating Utility Dependence on Probability,” Theory and Decision, 18, pp. 263–285, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCord, M. R. and R. de Neufville, “Empirical Demonstration that Expected Utility Decision Analysis is not Operational,” Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications, pp. 181–199, B. P. Stigum and F. Wenstop (eds.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, NL, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, and D. A. Schkade, “Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code,” Risk and Uncertainty, 19:1–3, pp. 243–70, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rogers, M., M. Bruen, and L.-Y. Maystre, ELECTRE and Decision Support: Methods and Applications in Engineering and Infrastructure Investment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston USA, 2000, 208 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Roy, B., Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NL, 1996, 292 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. von Winterfeldt, D. and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Franzese
    • 1
  • Mark R. McCord
    • 2
  1. 1.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations